3 ms·

Wallmart workers famously cannot even afford to pay Wallmart prices for their foods. How are townspeople (many of which are Wallmart workers) supposed to pay hi

Wallmart workers famously cannot even afford to pay Wallmart prices for their foods. How are townspeople (many of which are Wallmart workers) supposed to pay higher prices for their food when they can’t even afford the lowest price?

HDThoreaun 4y ago
It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. I mean I agree that our system isn't perfect, or even that good, but no system is. Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. If the labor market is a monopsony, as it commonly is in small towns, the government should step in.
- runarberg 4y ago
  > Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. They do not. Cuba has yet to experience a famine despite being under a severe embargo for several decades. Famines also happen under capitalism. There are multitude of famines in east Africa to choose from, death count is well over tens of millions. Outside of Africa, the Bengal famine happened under British rule, death count 1-4 million people. While socialism was gaining traction inside British isles at the time, their colonies kept being ruled by harsh free market advocates. However blaming capitalism for the Bengal famine is unfair, where imperialism, colonialism, and racism is a much better explanation, similarly, blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation. Famines aren’t the only man-made disaster out there. It is hard to blame anything but global capitalism for disaster such as the Bhopal disaster, where one of the largest cities in India was poisoned in a effort to maximize profits for shareholders. Thousands died. Together the disaster of capitalism cause several orders more deadly than the disaster commonly attributed to communism.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Cuba is facing a famine right now. Communism was the cause of authoritarianism in china and the ussr. It's not possible to have a command economy run by humans without eventually having the leader be an authoritarian. Capitalism did not cause people to be greedy, they were already greedy. Capitalism just embraces our nature and aligns incentives while communism pretends people can be changed to not follow incentives.
    - positron6000 4y ago
      > Cuba is facing a famine right now Because the US has embargoed Cuba for decades to cause hunger and desperation: > If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06... Citation needed on all your other claims.
      - monero-xmr 4y ago
        Cuba is not embargoed by Canada, the EU, and so on, so the USA not providing food is certainly not a valid argument. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/cuba/european-union-and-cuba_en?s=136#:~:text=Investments%2C%20exchanges%20and%20undertakings,main%20export%20and%20trade%20partner https://www.eeas.europa.eu/cuba/european-union-and-cuba_en?s....
        runarberg 4y ago
        The USA embargo in Cuba is not causing a famine because there is no famine. So you’re vitamin A deficiency did not cause your black eye, because you have enough vitamin B and C, and also you don’t have a black eye. Also the embargo de jure excludes food and medicine (although de facto it is hard to export those to Cuba), but also subsidiaries of USA companies are also not allowed to trade with Cuba, so Canadian and EU companies which do business in the USA (which is almost everybody) are risking a lot by trading with Cuba, so in effect the embargo is somewhat extended by large parts of EU and Canada.
  - petsfed 4y ago
    > blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation Not to nitpick, but was Mao's China fascist, strictly speaking? I ask because the big 3 fascist regimes of the 20th century (Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain) were all stridently anti-communist, anti-collectivist, and anti-Marxist. You can see a lot of the other elements of many definitions of fascism in Mao's regime, but that anti-communist part is really hard to square. One definition I appreciated is that fascism is vocally and stridently anti-equality, and by that standard, Mao's regime is clearly not a fascist one, even as it just as strongly authoritarian as any self-described fascist regime. I'm actually not prepared to say that communism or capitalism is more deadly, because I think the reality is that the people making decisions got to that place because of skill in political infighting, not superior judgement on the topic at hand. That is, the reason planned economies do fail is not because planned economies must fail, per se. Rather economies are, of necessity, massively complicated things and its very difficult to account for every variable adequately whilst planning, to say nothing of the difficulty of conniving the appropriate carrots and sticks for every participant at every level, to convince all participants to follow the plan.
    - danaris 4y ago
      What fascism and most countries that have called themselves "communist" have in common is authoritarianism. 95% of what most Americans criticize as "the evils of communism" are, in fact, the evils of authoritarian systems; it just happens that the big authoritarian system that was in opposition to America for decades called itself communist. Much like North Korea calls itself "democratic". And while fascism is, indeed, anti-equality, the inequality it seeks to foster is almost always between a cultural in-group and Everyone Else. Furthermore, fascism does not always seek to murder the Other; it also seeks to forcibly assimilate them. Guess what Mao did in China: systematically eradicated massive swathes of Chinese culture—or rather, cultures, because there were many differences between what it meant to be, say, Han Chinese vs Mongolian or Tibetan. The Uyghur genocide that is ongoing today is just an extension of that—and yes, it fits quite well with fascist ideals.
- positron6000 4y ago
  > It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. Sure! I live in a small rural town with a poor public education system and no professional opportunities outside of manual labor. I had to leave high school to work to support my family. The most I can make is minimum wage, which means that I cannot afford basic necessities. What "better" jobs am I able to choose from? Or do I have to wait for "the government" to step in so my family doesn't starve?
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Rural economies being fucked isn't capitalism's fault. If you don't create valuable things you won't get valuable things, that's true in all economic systems. If you want valuable things you should probably move somewhere where they are being created and get a job there. Forcing rural people to move to urban areas and work in factories is a classic communism move because it turns out people are more productive when near each other. Capitalism just gives people the choice of doing that or staying where they are and being poorer. Allowing poverty to exist really has nothing to do with capitalism the economic system and everything to do with the political climate in society. Capitalism is just free markets and property rights, it doesn't say anything about government redistribution. Getting rid of markets would not help poor people at all.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      You seem to conveniently ignore the externalities that most people who have investigated them agree are a major component in a corporation like Walmart existing at all. I would agree with most of what you've written if the price of goods at Walmart actually represented their true cost. But instead, Walmart relies on externalities (the most obvious one is their reliance on their staff being able to collect various forms of public assistance, but there are plenty more) in order to maintain their prices.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Just for the record, the article in which thread spun from is about the socialist question. It is asking whether there is a reason to your mentality. That is, is it worth it to regulate economies and set up social services such that people don’t have to live at the whims of free market capitalism. Unsurprisingly for an alumni of the Chicago school the author believes this is still an open question, however this article is kind of well written and everything up to the conclusion—that is the historical breakdown of this question—seems to indicate that socialism is good actually, and Laissez-faire capitalism is bad.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
This data is somewhat misrepresented. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, you have to also work (unless you get an exemption, like for caretaking). So the government is trying to get people off SNAP for pushing them to work, then shaming the employer for hiring people on SNAP. Walmart is a common low skill entry level job, so not a surprise that a lot of SNAP beneficiaries end up there. The top employers that have SNAP beneficiaries also include the USPS, Amazon, Home Depot, Publix, Uber, McDonalds, Krogers...

HDThoreaun 4y ago

It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. I mean I agree that our system isn't perfect, or even that good, but no system is. Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. If the labor market is a monopsony, as it commonly is in small towns, the government should step in.

runarberg 4y ago
> Planned economies consistently lead to famine and tens of millions of people starving to death. They do not. Cuba has yet to experience a famine despite being under a severe embargo for several decades. Famines also happen under capitalism. There are multitude of famines in east Africa to choose from, death count is well over tens of millions. Outside of Africa, the Bengal famine happened under British rule, death count 1-4 million people. While socialism was gaining traction inside British isles at the time, their colonies kept being ruled by harsh free market advocates. However blaming capitalism for the Bengal famine is unfair, where imperialism, colonialism, and racism is a much better explanation, similarly, blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation. Famines aren’t the only man-made disaster out there. It is hard to blame anything but global capitalism for disaster such as the Bhopal disaster, where one of the largest cities in India was poisoned in a effort to maximize profits for shareholders. Thousands died. Together the disaster of capitalism cause several orders more deadly than the disaster commonly attributed to communism.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Cuba is facing a famine right now. Communism was the cause of authoritarianism in china and the ussr. It's not possible to have a command economy run by humans without eventually having the leader be an authoritarian. Capitalism did not cause people to be greedy, they were already greedy. Capitalism just embraces our nature and aligns incentives while communism pretends people can be changed to not follow incentives.
  - positron6000 4y ago
    > Cuba is facing a famine right now Because the US has embargoed Cuba for decades to cause hunger and desperation: > If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06... Citation needed on all your other claims.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      Cuba is not embargoed by Canada, the EU, and so on, so the USA not providing food is certainly not a valid argument. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/cuba/european-union-and-cuba_en?s=136#:~:text=Investments%2C%20exchanges%20and%20undertakings,main%20export%20and%20trade%20partner https://www.eeas.europa.eu/cuba/european-union-and-cuba_en?s....
      - runarberg 4y ago
        The USA embargo in Cuba is not causing a famine because there is no famine. So you’re vitamin A deficiency did not cause your black eye, because you have enough vitamin B and C, and also you don’t have a black eye. Also the embargo de jure excludes food and medicine (although de facto it is hard to export those to Cuba), but also subsidiaries of USA companies are also not allowed to trade with Cuba, so Canadian and EU companies which do business in the USA (which is almost everybody) are risking a lot by trading with Cuba, so in effect the embargo is somewhat extended by large parts of EU and Canada.
- petsfed 4y ago
  > blaming communism for the Great Chinese Famine in Mao’s China is unfair, when fascism is a much better explanation Not to nitpick, but was Mao's China fascist, strictly speaking? I ask because the big 3 fascist regimes of the 20th century (Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain) were all stridently anti-communist, anti-collectivist, and anti-Marxist. You can see a lot of the other elements of many definitions of fascism in Mao's regime, but that anti-communist part is really hard to square. One definition I appreciated is that fascism is vocally and stridently anti-equality, and by that standard, Mao's regime is clearly not a fascist one, even as it just as strongly authoritarian as any self-described fascist regime. I'm actually not prepared to say that communism or capitalism is more deadly, because I think the reality is that the people making decisions got to that place because of skill in political infighting, not superior judgement on the topic at hand. That is, the reason planned economies do fail is not because planned economies must fail, per se. Rather economies are, of necessity, massively complicated things and its very difficult to account for every variable adequately whilst planning, to say nothing of the difficulty of conniving the appropriate carrots and sticks for every participant at every level, to convince all participants to follow the plan.
  - danaris 4y ago
    What fascism and most countries that have called themselves "communist" have in common is authoritarianism. 95% of what most Americans criticize as "the evils of communism" are, in fact, the evils of authoritarian systems; it just happens that the big authoritarian system that was in opposition to America for decades called itself communist. Much like North Korea calls itself "democratic". And while fascism is, indeed, anti-equality, the inequality it seeks to foster is almost always between a cultural in-group and Everyone Else. Furthermore, fascism does not always seek to murder the Other; it also seeks to forcibly assimilate them. Guess what Mao did in China: systematically eradicated massive swathes of Chinese culture—or rather, cultures, because there were many differences between what it meant to be, say, Han Chinese vs Mongolian or Tibetan. The Uyghur genocide that is ongoing today is just an extension of that—and yes, it fits quite well with fascist ideals.
positron6000 4y ago
> It's a market. If you don't like your job look for a better one. Sure! I live in a small rural town with a poor public education system and no professional opportunities outside of manual labor. I had to leave high school to work to support my family. The most I can make is minimum wage, which means that I cannot afford basic necessities. What "better" jobs am I able to choose from? Or do I have to wait for "the government" to step in so my family doesn't starve?
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Rural economies being fucked isn't capitalism's fault. If you don't create valuable things you won't get valuable things, that's true in all economic systems. If you want valuable things you should probably move somewhere where they are being created and get a job there. Forcing rural people to move to urban areas and work in factories is a classic communism move because it turns out people are more productive when near each other. Capitalism just gives people the choice of doing that or staying where they are and being poorer. Allowing poverty to exist really has nothing to do with capitalism the economic system and everything to do with the political climate in society. Capitalism is just free markets and property rights, it doesn't say anything about government redistribution. Getting rid of markets would not help poor people at all.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    You seem to conveniently ignore the externalities that most people who have investigated them agree are a major component in a corporation like Walmart existing at all. I would agree with most of what you've written if the price of goods at Walmart actually represented their true cost. But instead, Walmart relies on externalities (the most obvious one is their reliance on their staff being able to collect various forms of public assistance, but there are plenty more) in order to maintain their prices.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Just for the record, the article in which thread spun from is about the socialist question. It is asking whether there is a reason to your mentality. That is, is it worth it to regulate economies and set up social services such that people don’t have to live at the whims of free market capitalism. Unsurprisingly for an alumni of the Chicago school the author believes this is still an open question, however this article is kind of well written and everything up to the conclusion—that is the historical breakdown of this question—seems to indicate that socialism is good actually, and Laissez-faire capitalism is bad.

WillPostForFood 4y ago

This data is somewhat misrepresented. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, you have to also work (unless you get an exemption, like for caretaking). So the government is trying to get people off SNAP for pushing them to work, then shaming the employer for hiring people on SNAP. Walmart is a common low skill entry level job, so not a surprise that a lot of SNAP beneficiaries end up there. The top employers that have SNAP beneficiaries also include the USPS, Amazon, Home Depot, Publix, Uber, McDonalds, Krogers...